Audit of overseas provision

Audit of overseas provision Brunel University and the Technological Institution, Athens, and Alexander Technological Educational Institute, Thessaloniki MAY 2008

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2009 ISBN 978 1 84482 904 0 All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk Registered charity numbers 1062746 and SC037786

Audit of overseas provision Introduction 1 This report considers a collaborative arrangement between Brunel University and the Technological Educational Institution of Athens and Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki. 2 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a United Kingdom (UK) organisation which seeks to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded. It provides public information about quality and standards in higher education to meet the needs of students, employers and funders of higher education. It does this mainly through a peer review process of audits and reviews conducted by teams of auditors and reviewers comprising academic staff from higher or further education institutions. The most recent Institutional audit of the University was conducted by QAA in May 2004. 3 One of QAA's activities is to carry out quality audits of collaborative links between UK higher education institutions and their partner organisations in other countries. In the spring and early summer of 2008, QAA conducted audits of selected partnership links between UK higher education institutions and institutions in Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. The purpose of these audits was to provide information on the way in which the UK institutions were maintaining academic standards and the quality of education in their partnerships. The reports on the individual audits will be used in the preparation of an overview report on the collaborative arrangements for the management of standards and quality of UK higher education provision in Greece and Cyprus. The audit process for overseas collaborative links 4 In June 2007, QAA invited all UK higher education institutions to provide information on their collaborative partnerships in Greece and Cyprus. On the basis of the information returned on the nature and scale of the links, QAA selected for audit visits seven UK institutions with links in Greece and Cyprus. Each of the selected institutions produced a commentary describing the way in which the link(s) operated, and commenting on the effectiveness of the means by which it assured quality and standards. In addition, each institution was asked, as part of its commentary, to make reference to the extent to which the link was representative of its procedures and practice in all its overseas collaborative activity. Institutions were also invited in their commentaries to make reference to the ways in which their arrangements met the expectations of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice), published by QAA, particularly Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), published in 2004. 5 In spring 2008, audit visits were made to each of the selected UK institutions to discuss their arrangements in the light of their commentary. In May 2008, an audit team visited the partner institutions in Greece and Cyprus to gain further insight into the experience of students and staff, and to supplement the view formed by the team from the institutions' commentaries and from the UK visits. During the visits to institutions in Greece and Cyprus, discussions were conducted with key members of staff and with students. The full audit team conducting audits of institutions with collaborative links in Greece and Cyprus comprised Professor B Anderton (UK visits only), Dr R Davison (UK visits only), Professor P Hodson, Professor A Holmes, Professor P Maher, Professor D Meehan (auditors), and Ms C Smith (audit secretary). The audit was coordinated for QAA by Mrs E Harries Jenkins and Mr D Greenaway, Assistant Directors, Reviews Group. QAA is particularly grateful to the UK institutions and their partners in Greece and Cyprus for the willing cooperation they provided to the team. 1

Brunel University The context of collaborative provision with partners in Greece 6 Under the Greek constitution, higher education is the exclusive responsibility of the State and may be provided only by State institutions. Public higher education is divided into universities or higher educational institutes (known by the acronym AEI) and technological education institutes (TEIs). Both types of institutions award their own degrees and can also take part in collaborative activity to deliver awards of other providers, including UK providers. TEIs are considered as vocationally oriented higher education institutions. At the time of the audit four TEIs had collaborative partnerships with UK institutions of which two were visited as part of the audit. 7 While there are no recognised private higher education institutions in Greece, local legislation permits private organisations offering post-school education to exist as liberal studies centres. At the time of the audit, 18 of these centres had collaborative arrangements with UK higher education institutions for the delivery of programmes leading to UK awards. 8 UK awards delivered through collaborations with private institutions are not recognised by the Greek State, which limits the opportunities for employment within the public sector and in regulated professional sectors. In the case of collaborations with public institutions the opportunity exists for submission to the government authorities for recognition. 9 Two months after the completion of the audit visit in Greece, the Greek Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs announced a new legal framework for the operation of private colleges, which included specific provision for collaborating with foreign degree awarding institutions. The background to the collaborative link General background 10 Brunel University (the University) has two collaborative partners in Greece, the Technological Education Institute (TEI) Athens and Alexander Technological Educational Institute (ATEI) Thessaloniki. Both institutions are government-funded higher education institutions, of which there are 15 in Greece. Both are mature institutions with a large student base; TEI Athens being the largest TEI in Greece with some 32,000 students. 11 The University has had informal links with TEI Athens since 1990 through Erasmus and Socrates programmes. In 1996 this relationship was formalised through the agreement to deliver an MSc in Data Communications Systems at TEI Athens and, subsequently, an MSc in Wireless Communication Systems at ATEI Thessaloniki from 2007. The audit team also learned from meetings with senior staff at TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki, that mutual research interests, reputation and staff expertise had been a key factor in developing the partnership. In 2004, the master's programme at TEI Athens gained recognition by the Greek authorities. At the time of the audit, an application for recognition for the programme delivered at ATEI Thessaloniki had been submitted to the Greek Accreditation Board. 12 Initially, both TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki wanted to develop a postgraduate programme. As TEIs are not currently permitted by the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs to offer postgraduate programmes unless in collaboration with a national or foreign institution with degree awarding powers; both TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki saw the benefit of establishing a partnership with an overseas higher education institution. 13 The collaborative partnerships are what the University terms 'off-campus' mode (see paragraph 17). A comprehensive register of the University's collaborative provision was provided to the audit team, which confirmed that the University has a relatively small portfolio of collaborative provision predominantly with overseas institutions. 2

Audit of overseas provision 14 The partnerships discussed in this report are with the School of Engineering and Design, and both programmes are identical in content to the on-campus versions at the University, and procedures for admission, student support and assessment follow those for the on-campus provision. Students are considered to be full students of the University and are not registered with the TEIs. However, the mode of delivery is different from that at the University, where both programmes are full-time. At the partner institutions, the programmes are delivered in blocks on Fridays and Saturdays, as the students are generally part-time and in employment. Delivery is by University staff who undertake lectures, seminars and dissertation supervision, and this is supported by local staff that have been granted Recognised Teacher Status of the University. These local staff provide tutor support for the laboratory workshop modules and some dissertation supervision. The language of both study and assessment is English. 15 The Memorandum of Agreement for TEI Athens provides for a maximum of 32 students per year and a minimum of 18 students, although the numbers for the academic year 2007-08 fell slightly below the minimum number. The agreed numbers for ATEI Thessaloniki are a maximum of 30 students, and there are 25 students enrolled on the first cohort in the academic year 2007-08. 16 Although the Agreement with TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki states that minimum student numbers will be agreed each year and, if the required number is not recruited, the programme will not run in that year, the University informed the audit team that any decision would be discussed in detail with the partner and would be taken a year ahead of implementation. 17 Collaboration through off-campus postgraduate programmes is one of two types of collaborative provision offered by the University; the other being through articulation agreements. Although off-campus postgraduate collaborations are the minority part of the University's collaborative provision, the links with TEI and ATEI are typical of this type of arrangement at the University. 18 The University's Strategic Plan 2008 to 2012 includes a 'strategic imperative' to compete globally through collaborations and partnerships. The University indicated that the collaborations with the TEIs are consistent with its strategic mission, and it would look to develop similar collaborations in the future. However, this would be dependent on finding suitable partners. The UK institution's approach to overseas collaboration 19 The University's Senate has overall responsibility for collaborative provision and its regulations include a section that relates to collaborative provision. This includes a schedule of requirements, which should be evaluated and reported on as part of the establishment of a collaborative partnership. In addition, the Director of Finance is required to approve the financial arrangements for the collaboration and the Academic Registrar must approve administrative arrangements. Other University committees central to the management of quality and standards for these collaborative links are the Learning and Teaching Committee, the Postgraduate Committee, and school boards of studies. At the partner institutions, local boards of studies for each programme and staff-student liaison committees form part of the quality assurance mechanisms. 20 At the time of the audit, the Memoranda of Agreement for both links stated that the University shall retain overall responsibility for the academic management and control of the programmes and for the maintenance, monitoring and evaluation of the academic standards through the Regulations of the University. Partner links are responsible for the administration of the initial recruitment of students, providing staffing, physical and financial resources to carry out supervision, assessment and tutorial support of practical sessions/laboratories, student welfare and administration of the programme and its students. Public information, publicity and promotional activity 21 The audit team was provided with examples of promotional materials for both off-campus provisions, and these made clear the relationship between the University and the partner institution. 3

Brunel University The Memorandum of Agreement states that while the partner is responsible for marketing the programme, all publicity and marketing material must be approved by the University through the University's International Office and in liaison with the relevant academic school. From the evidence available to it, the audit team was satisfied that such approval was being sought. Formal procedures for establishing the link Selecting and approving the partner institution 22 The University's Handbook, Protocols and Guidance for Establishment of Collaborative Links/Provision, comprehensively sets out the procedures that must be followed in establishing a collaborative link to deliver a course with another institution. Proposals are required to observe the following principles: the activity must further the University's mission 'to produce high quality graduates and research of use to the community'; the aims and objectives of the partner institution must be compatible with those of the University; the short and long-term benefits for both the University and the partner must be clear and explicit; the course must be financially viable and self-supporting; the 'home' department must have appropriate expertise in the subject area; and all teaching, learning and assessment must be in English. 23 The Protocol and Guidance for Establishment of Collaborative Links/Provision identifies a two stage process: a 'Preliminary Assessment' and a quality audit. The Preliminary Assessment is the procedure for development of a new collaborative partnership. This assessment should be conducted by the 'University sponsor' and should consider the following: the nature of the proposed collaboration; the rationale for the University to develop the partnership; the nature and status of the proposed partner; the financial status of the partner institution; and the experience of the proposed partner in running other collaborative provision in the academic area and/or at the proposed level. The Protocol also requires that the University and department should undertake exploratory visits and meetings to determine the appropriateness of the proposed partnership. The University requires that advice should be sought with respect to the impact of local legislation and on any procedures necessary for registration of the course. The sponsor produces a draft proposal and business plan for approval by the School Board. 24 The formal procedure for partner approval is an academic quality audit, convened by the Director of Academic Programme Development, and includes a member of the academic staff and a University Quality and Standards Department representative. The Quality Audit evaluates the proposed partner under a number of broad headings, which include governance and management; organisational quality assurance; academic staffing, and organisational support system. The panel meet with staff and students and consider a wide range of documentation. A report of the visit is subsequently produced and considered by the Learning and Teaching Committee and a recommendation is made to Senate. 25 The audit team learned that ATEI Thessaloniki had identified the University as a suitable institution in terms of postgraduate programme compatibility. The Vice President and the relevant head of department from ATEI visited the University to discuss the opportunity of a collaborative link. In keeping with the University's procedures, representatives from the University then visited ATEI to check resources as part of the Preliminary Assessment, and an Academic Quality Audit was undertaken at ATEI in January 2007. 26 The audit team saw the Academic Quality Audit Report for the approval of ATEI Thessaloniki as a collaborative partner. The Report noted that, because of 'student action during the audit', the Quality Audit team was unable to gain access to, and inspect, departmental facilities at first-hand. However, they did not believe this had a significant impact on their reaching a positive conclusion to the event. The Academic Quality Audit identified a number of issues to be addressed as part of the approval process. The team was able to confirm that consideration of the Report took place at the University's Learning and Teaching Committee. Formal approval, once all recommendations from the quality audit had been completed was 4

Audit of overseas provision received in September 2007, just before the commencement of the programme. The team queried whether the students recruited to the programme prior to its approval had been aware of the status of programme. The team saw clear evidence that the offer letters given to students by the University stated that the course was 'subject to approval' and that students were only registered on the programme once approval and conditions had been given. 27 Although the University and TEI Athens had a long-standing informal relationship, which predated the formal collaborative partnership, the University protocols in existence that time were applied appropriately to establish formally the link. A validation visit took place in 1996 and the initial Memorandum of Agreement was agreed and signed in 1997. 28 From the evidence available, the audit team formed the view that the University has comprehensive protocols that had been applied rigorously in formally establishing the partnerships with TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki to deliver the two master's programmes. Programme approval 29 The courses offered through the partner institutions in off-campus mode had already been approved for on-campus delivery at the University and, to this end, the audit team noted that there were detailed programme specifications approved for both programmes. These had been made partner-specific and appended to the Memorandum of Agreement for the partners. The procedures for programme approval are clearly stated in the guidance published by the University and include appropriate externality. The team found, from the evidence available, that the protocols were robust and were being applied to the University's programmes delivered in Greece. Written agreements 30 The audit team had sight of the latest Memoranda of Agreement for TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki, dated March 2007 respectively. Although a few minor discrepancies were identified and acknowledged by staff of the University, the team formed the view that, overall, the agreements were both comprehensive in their coverage and clearly expressed. Staff at the partner institution, with whom the team met, confirmed that they were clear about their responsibilities and that the relationships worked well. Quality management of the link Management of the link 31 The University retains overall responsibility for the academic management and control of the programme. The University appoints a course director for each of the collaborations, and a local course coordinator at each of the TEIs. Although there is no formal job or role description for either of these roles, it was evident to the audit team, from meetings at the University and the partner links, that these roles were complementary, dialogue was frequent and that each person was aware of their responsibilities. The University indicated that the Deputy Head of School had briefed the local course coordinators and made clear the University's expectations, including co-chairing the local board of studies. 32 The collaborative links are supported by the School's Postgraduate Taught Programmes Office at the University, and each TEI employs a full-time programme administrator. In meetings with the senior team at TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki, the audit team found that the programme administrator played a key role in supporting the management of the programme, particularly in respect of maintaining student records and managing the assessment process. 33 The audit team heard that in addition to University staff visiting the partner to undertake the delivery of the programme, the Course Director visited up to four times each year and the respective local course coordinators visited the University at least once each year. 5

Brunel University 34 The audit team was informed that the University gives advance notice, usually an academic year, of any changes to the programme that may have resource or curricular implications. Annual monitoring and review 35 The University devolves annual monitoring to school level. Undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in the School are monitored separately, and this generates a School overview report that is approved by the School Board, issues from which are referred to the Learning and Teaching Committee. The Memoranda of Agreement for the partner links states that there should be an annual review of the programme carried out by the University, with input from both partner staff and students. Partner institutions do not have to prepare a separate annual report and the audit team concluded that the minutes from the local Board of Studies, which are forwarded to the University, form the main source of input by partner staff. Although learning resources, staff expertise and staff development are key areas for consideration as part of annual monitoring, it was unclear to the team how and where these were explicitly captured in the monitoring process. Students complete questionnaires for those modules delivered by University staff and for the laboratory modules supported by the local tutors. Both the Course Director at the University and the local course coordinators attend meetings of the staff-student liaison committee held at the partner institution, the minutes of which are forwarded to the University. The University also draws on external examiners' reports (see paragraph 60) and analysis of student progression data in the annual monitoring process. 36 The University does not provide formal feedback to the partners about the outcome of the annual monitoring process, but the audit team was satisfied that the regular dialogue between the University and TEI Athens resulted in any issues being speedily identified and addressed. The programme at ATEI Thessaloniki had yet to be subject to annual monitoring. Periodic review 37 Periodic review takes place within each school at the University on a five-yearly cycle and is carried out through departmental-level review which includes on-campus and collaborative provision. In addition to the standard procedures for subject discipline review, an academic quality audit of the partner institution (see paragraph 24) also takes place and may coincide with the reapproval of the partnership agreement. 38 The most recent review of TEI Athens took place in October 2006 and encompassed the re-approval of the partnership. The Academic Quality Audit was conducted by a team led by the Director of Postgraduate Courses from the University, and included University staff that delivered the programme and staff from other schools/departments. The audit considered the provision against a number of criteria in four areas: governance and management; organisational quality assurance; academic staffing; and organisational support systems. The resulting Academic Quality Audit Report made a number of detailed recommendations in relation to communication with TEI staff, enabling TEI staff to contribute to the review process, analysis of progression statistics, and aspects of the support provided for students, but concluded that TEI Athens continued 'to be a safe partner and the risks inherent with overseas collaboration had been successfully mitigated'. The programme at ATEI Thessaloniki has yet to be subject to periodic review. 39 The Academic Quality Audit Report for TEI Athens was considered by the Learning and Teaching Committee and ongoing actions followed up through the annual monitoring process. Senate considers an annual review of collaborative provision which identifies issues for consideration in relation to UK and overseas partnerships. The report for 2006-07 included reflection on the Quality Audit Report for TEI Athens. 40 Programme changes to on-campus programmes made as a result of the periodic review process are discussed with partners, and the audit team saw examples of such discussions. 6

Audit of overseas provision Staffing and staff development 41 Academic staff from the partner institutions who wish to be involved in delivery of the off-campus programmes must be approved by the University as having Recognised Teacher Status. 42 There are no specified criteria for Recognised Teacher Status appointments. The audit team was informed that the Deputy Head of School (Postgraduate) receives recommendations from the relevant head of department at the TEIs with the curricula vitae of those staff interested in teaching on the programme. In considering the curricula vitae account is taken of the level of qualifications, expertise and experience. Should these be considered to be appropriate a recommendation is made for appointment to Recognised Teacher Status to the Chair of Learning and Teaching Committee. The Chair, who also has sight of the curricula vitae and decides whether the appointment should be made, subsequently reports all approvals to the Committee. Initial appointment is for a period of five years. Senate is informed through the receipt of the minutes of the Learning and Teaching Committee. The University noted that, although there is no equivalent of the postgraduate teaching qualification in Greece, staff at the partner institutions were often highly qualified and experienced in the Greek higher education sector. All changes to staff associated with the programme are required to be notified in advance to the University and the team heard of this taking place. 43 Local staff with Recognised Teacher Status share the supervision of the dissertation module with University staff (acting as first supervisor to approximately half of the students), and they also deliver the Laboratory Workshop module (see paragraphs 55, 56). 44 Local staff with Recognised Teacher Status meet with the University Course Director and other University staff during their visits to the partner links; such meetings include the provision of staff development activities, such as a two-day session at ATEI Thessaloniki on the use of a new software system for delivery of the Workshop module. Local Recognised Teacher Status staff may also contact the Deputy Head of School for support and advice. The TEI staff also informed the audit team that they had been invited to attend staff development activities at the University, although this was difficult because of existing teaching commitments. The team heard that there were opportunities to undertake joint research and that such collaboration was currently taking place, and was valued highly. 45 The University implements its system of peer review for staff at the partner with Recognised Teacher Status. However, the review is undertaken by senior staff from the University in order to manage local sensitivities about such a system. The audit team found in discussions with partner staff that not all Recognised Teacher Status staff had been subject to peer review, and there did not appear to be a rolling programme of peer review for all Recognised Teacher Status staff. In most cases, it had been less experienced or newly appointed Recognised Teacher Status staff who had been given priority and they were positive about the process and the written feedback received. The team formed the view that the University may wish to consider ways of embedding further the process of the peer review of staff at the partner links. 46 Staff at TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki confirmed that they have electronic access to relevant University systems, such as the virtual learning environment, and they knew how to process student issues in accordance with University requirements, such as mitigating circumstances and student complaints. 47 The audit team concluded that partner staff with Recognised Teacher Status were well supported by the University, with targeted and appropriate staff development opportunities. 7

Brunel University Student admissions 48 The University has sole responsibility for making admissions decisions; the partner links are involved in the administration of the initial recruitment of students. The TEIs receive, screen and forward all appropriate applications to the University. The audit team sought clarification regarding this and was informed that the partners screen out applications that obviously do not meet the University's entry requirements, and then forward them to the University for consideration. 49 The Memoranda of Agreement contain a clear statement of entry requirements for the programmes in terms of academic qualification and competence in the English language, although the University acknowledged that in the Programme Specification annexed as Schedule 1 to the TEI Athens Agreement, reference to English language competence was absent from the statement of admissions requirements. This was an omission and was correctly shown (as International English Language Testing System 6.0 or equivalent) in the ATEI Thessaloniki Agreement and in the publicity material at both partners. Students are expected to have a good honours bachelor degree and achieve a particular mark threshold in some modules before being accepted for admission onto the programmes. The Course Director from the University and the local course coordinator at the partner institutions interview any non-standard students. There is no entry with advanced standing. 50 In meetings with the audit team, students confirmed that they had been informed fully of the entry requirements including the English language requirement. The entry requirements were also clearly stated on the publicity materials. Students received a formal offer of a place from the University. In the case of the recently validated programme at ATEI Thessaloniki, the offer letter had clearly stated that the programme was 'subject to approval'. 51 The audit team considered the admissions process to be clear and transparent with the partner institutions operating within the agreed arrangements. Assurance of academic standards 52 The University asserts that it provides assurance of its academic standards by retaining responsibility for all matters relating to admissions and registration, and assessment and awards. A theme through both the Commentary and in the discussions with the audit team was the importance placed on the commonality of standards and student experience between the on and off-campus modes of study. 53 The University ensures the quality of learning opportunities through delivery of the programme by University staff and local staff with Recognised Teacher Status, and by ensuring the adequacy of learning resource provision at the local partner as part of the initial approval process, and subsequently through the periodic Academic Quality Audit process. Assessment 54 The off-campus provision operates within the University's normal regulatory framework as it applies to on-campus provision. On and off-campus students sit exactly the same exam papers as set by University staff and examinations are sat at the same time. The majority of assignments are identical between the on and off-campus versions of the programmes. The exception to this, at the time of the audit, was the Laboratory Workshop module at ATEI Thessaloniki; the lack of access to a particular software programme has meant that assignments have been different. However, the University's stated objective is to achieve total convergence. ATEI has purchased the licence for the particular software package and students will now be able to undertake the same assignment as the on-campus students. 55 All student assessments for on and off-campus provision are marked by University staff, with the exception of the Laboratory Workshop module which is marked by local staff with Recognised Teacher Status. The audit team found that there was no explicit requirement for 8

Audit of overseas provision the moderation of these assessments by the University. The team believed moderation by the University would give confidence both to students and to the University that this locally marked work was being assessed at an appropriate standard, and would further enhance the shared understanding of academic standards between the University and staff in the TEIs. 56 The students select a dissertation from an approved list provided by the University to which the partners may contribute. Approximately half of the dissertations are supervised by University staff and half by local staff with Recognised Teacher Status. First marking is by the supervisor, with second blind-marking by a member of staff from the other institution, either the TEI or University. The audit team formed the view that this was a positive feature of the partnerships, as it draws appropriately on the expertise of the Greek academics and facilitates greater engagement of the tutors in the process. 57 Students confirmed to the audit team that they are informed of assessment criteria, of what was expected of them by the University tutors, and how assignments should be submitted using the University's assessment form, which allows the tutor to provide feedback on the assessment criteria. However, the team heard that not all feedback from the University on assessment was provided expeditiously. The students were, however, satisfied with the quality and timeliness of feedback on the Laboratory Workshop assessment, which was normally returned within three weeks. The team saw evidence that students were made aware of the assessment regulations at induction and that they were also contained in the student handbook prepared by the University. 58 The University operates a tiered examination board system, with panels considering module level results, and examination boards considering overall performance at programme level. On and off-campus student assessment results go to the same panels and examinations boards held at the University. Mitigating circumstances are dealt with by the University in line with their procedures. The TEIs have a right to send a designated representative to the Board of Examiners at the University, although this opportunity has yet to be taken up. A comparative analysis of student performance at TEI Athens and the University is undertaken and shared with the partner. 59 The audit team formed the view that the responsibility of the partners within the assessment process was clearly articulated in the Memorandum of Agreement. Partners were operating within the agreement. However, the team formed the view that the University should be explicit regarding its requirements for the moderation of the Laboratory Workshop assessment. The University might find the explanation to Precept 7 of the Code of practice, Section 6: Assessment of students, helpful in this regard. External examiners 60 The University regards its external examining arrangements as a key strength in the effective monitoring and maintenance of academic standards in its collaborative partnerships. The same external examiner is appointed to cover both the on and off-campus versions of the MSc programmes offered through the partner links. The University believes this enables the external examiners to make effective judgements about the comparability of standards on the offcampus mode of study. All reports are addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and go to the University Quality and Standards Office, and are considered by the Learning and Teaching Committee and Senate. Each school at the University provides the formal response to external examiners' reports. While the partners receive external examiner reports, the audit team learned that they were not required to make a formal response or provide feedback to the University. 61 The audit team saw a sample of external examiners' reports in relation to both partner links and noted that only one made any explicit reference to the off-campus provision in Greece. The Commentary stated that an issue had been raised in one report about the need for the external examiner to see assessed work from off-campus students. The team saw evidence at its visit to the University, which confirmed that the matter had been addressed fully. The team was also informed that the University had modified the external examiners' reporting template to 9

Brunel University better capture comments relating to collaborative provision. A recurrent theme across a number of external examiners' reports was a desire to meet students. However, the team was informed that there were no immediate plans for this to take place. 62 The audit team formed the view that notwithstanding the apparent scarcity of comments about the partner links by the external examiners, the external examining arrangements for the programmes were robust. Certificates and transcripts 63 The University retains responsibility for the issuing of the degree certificates and transcripts. The audit team was able to confirm that each record the location of study and that all modules were delivered and assessed in English. In addition, the transcript contains grade descriptor statements to aid interpretation of the module grades. The team concluded, therefore, that the there was clarity and transparency in relation to the certificates and transcripts and that the University has met the expectations of the Code of practice, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning), in this respect. Quality of information for students Student information 64 Students are provided with a number of handbooks at the start of their course: the Postgraduate Student Handbook includes guidance on undertaking a dissertation; school handbooks which outline a wide range of general support and regulatory issues including guidance on avoiding plagiarism; and module handbooks. These are the same as those provided for on-campus programmes, although the Student Handbook had been customised to take account of cultural and practical aspects of learning off-campus. 65 In the case of TEI Athens, students also receive a programme student handbook that covers both the on and off-campus versions of the programme. It makes specific reference to support facilities at the TEI as well as the University, and a listing of TEI staff and their contact details. In the case of ATEI Thessaloniki, a short programme student handbook for the MSc Wireless Communication was made available for students for the academic year 2007-08, the first year in which the course has operated. The audit team saw a draft copy of the Student Handbook for the academic year 2008-09, which it considered to be a more comprehensive document. 66 The audit team heard that all student discipline issues, complaints, and academic appeals come to the University through the Course Director and are dealt with under its regulatory framework. Following any failure to resolve issues informally, students have a right of appeal to the University. The team found, from meetings with senior staff and students, that a cautious approach was being used, with only minor issues being resolved at a local level, either through the staff-student liaison committees or the local boards of studies; both of these committees are attended by the University Course Director and minutes forwarded to the University. More major issues were dealt with by the University. 67 The students informed the audit team that they were satisfied with the quality and accuracy of the information provided to them by the University and commented that they found the induction and Student Handbook to be both comprehensive and extremely useful. Student support arrangements 68 The audit team was informed that the University Course Director and the Local Course Coordinator act as joint personal tutors for all students within the collaborative provision, providing both academic and pastoral support. This goes beyond the written agreement, which places the onus on the partner to provide pastoral support. The students with whom the team met were aware of the personal tutoring arrangements and noted that they also had regular 10

Audit of overseas provision email contact with University staff who deliver the taught modules in Greece, as well as being able to meet with them on their regular visits. 69 Students are classed as students of the University and those whom the audit team met confirmed that they regarded themselves as students of the University. As such they have full rights to use the University's learning resources, including the University library's electronic resources, and also have access to the University's e-learning platform. Students are provided with guidance on how to access these resources through the induction process, and guidance is also contained in the Student Handbook. The students also have access to resources at the partner institutions. The Student Handbook for TEI Athens provides evidence that students have access to a range of support facilities at the partner including the TEI Athens library and Careers Centre. The team saw evidence of similar facilities being available at ATEI Thessaloniki. 70 The audit team was informed that students are provided with guidance in the Postgraduate Student Handbook on undertaking a dissertation. The University Course Director also devotes one day to preparing students for their dissertation. The students were also aware that they could now attend the University to complete the dissertation stage of their programme. However, due to the cost and the fact that the majority of the students were in employment only a small number were likely to take up this option. 71 The audit team met with current students at both TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki, as well as students who had completed the programme at TEI Athens, and were informed that the students were highly satisfied with the support and guidance provided by the University, including access to University resources. Former students informed the team that some access problems to the University's virtual learning environment, when it was first introduced, had been resolved speedily. 72 The audit team formed the view from its meetings with staff and students that the students were well supported and valued the accessibility of both the University and partner staff. Student input into quality management 73 There is a formal and minuted student-staff liaison committee, which meets twice each year on which there are student representatives elected by the students. The audit team learned that representatives canvassed fellow students for their views largely by email. This committee is attended by the Course Director, and the Local Course Coordinator. The Staff-Student Liaison Committee meeting is scheduled to take place before meetings of the Local Board of Studies on which all Recognised Teacher Status tutors sit, and any issues raised by the students were fed directly into this meeting. Minutes of the local board of studies go forward to the school boards of studies, which address collaborative issues. The student representatives receive an email response to any issues raised. They also informed the team that they had received an email from the student representatives at the University inviting them to attend meetings of student representatives. It was clear to the team that the student representatives whom they met had been briefed about what was expected of them in their role during induction. 74 All students received both module questionnaires to be completed and submitted to the University tutors at the end of each module, as well as programme questionnaires that were submitted to the Programme Coordinator and forwarded to the University. They were not aware of receiving any feedback on these questionnaires. 75 The audit team found from its discussions with staff and students at the partner institutions that there were a variety of formal and informal mechanisms for students to provide an input into the quality management of the programmes. The close relationship of the Local Course Coordinator in the partner institution to the students and, in turn, with the Course Director at the University provides a swift mechanism for resolving issues. However, the University may wish to consider expeditious mechanisms for ensuring feedback to students on the matters they have raised. 11

Brunel University Conclusions 76 In considering the partnership, the audit team identified the following positive features: the protocols and guidelines for approval of a collaborative partner, which ensure standards and support the University's strategic approach to overseas collaborative provision (paragraphs 22 to 24, 27) the arrangements for the supervision of dissertations including the reciprocal arrangements for second-marking, where the first supervisor is either at TEI Athens, ATEI Thessaloniki or the University (paragraph 56) the long-standing mutual recognition of academic standing, which underpins the programme and supports opportunities for joint research (paragraphs 11, 44) the arrangements for student support such as joint personal tutors, which go beyond the requirements of the Memorandum of Agreement (paragraphs 68, 71). The audit team also identified the following points for consideration by the University: to consider ways of embedding further the process of the peer review of staff at the partner links (paragraph 45) to provide explicit arrangements for the moderation of the laboratory practice assessment (paragraph 55) to provide feedback to students on the actions arising from their module and programme evaluations (paragraph 75). 77 The University is aware of the requirements of the Code of practice. The audit team formed the view that the institution's protocols and guidelines for the management of its overseas collaborative arrangements were effective and aligned with the Code of practice. 78 The Commentary was generally accurate in describing the University's position in respect of the operation of the partnerships. The confidence expressed by the University in its procedures and framework for ensuring the quality and maintenance of standards was found to be largely supported by the evidence provided to the audit team. 12

Audit of overseas provision Appendix A Update on the partnership since the audit The University welcomes the report on the collaborative links between the University and the TEI Athens and ATEI Thessaloniki. The University in particular welcomes confirmation of its own view that its protocols and guidelines for approval of collaborative partners ensure standards and support the University's strategic approach to collaborative provision. The University is pleased to confirm that the Greek Accreditation Board has now accredited the MSc in Wireless Communication Systems programme delivered at ATEI Thessaloniki (paragraph 11 of the report refers). The University is also pleased to note that the Deputy Head of the School of Engineering and Design (Postgraduate) has been appointed recently as an external evaluator for the Hellenic Quality Assurance Agency, which will provide opportunities for cross cultural sharing of experience. Since the audit, the University has made progress with the implementation of some changes identified through its ongoing monitoring and enhancement procedures and through its response to the identified points for consideration contained in the audit report. For example, a job description for course directors within the School has been developed, and the programme teams are working with the partners to develop job descriptions for the local course coordinators (paragraph 31 refers). The University has developed some additional guidance for academic schools on annual monitoring, and areas for consideration, such as learning resources and staff development have been included explicitly in this guidance. Student feedback is collected from a variety of sources, including module and programme evaluation, staff student liaison meetings, induction sessions and informal discussions. The issues identified are addressed and fed back formally through the annual monitoring process, although informal feedback to students is ongoing and provided via the above sources. In future, local course coordinators will be invited to the School's annual monitoring meetings as a matter of course. Outcomes are provided in annual monitoring reports which will be circulated to partners following completion of this year's process, and subsequently, to ensure prompt and effective feedback to staff and students (paragraphs 35, 36 and 76 refer). The School has introduced a rolling programme of peer review of staff with Recognised Teacher Status (paragraph 76 refers). All assignments are now identical to those provided for students on the programme taught at the University (paragraph 54 refers). Laboratory assignment assessments are regularly sampled by the Course Director and/or the academic staff who deliver the assignments at Brunel, and this will continue to be rigorously applied (paragraph 76 refers). 13

Brunel University Appendix B Summary of current student numbers Student statistics as of November 2008 TEI Athens Cohort Sept 2005-06 Cohort Sept 2006-07 Cohort Sept 2007-08 Cohort Sept 2008-09 31 students enrolled and 27 graduated 21 students enrolled and 16 graduated 13 students enrolled and four graduated with a March 09 end date 20 students enrolled ATEI Thessaloniki Cohort Sept 2007-08 Cohort Sept 2008-09 25 students enrolled with a March 09 end date 26 students enrolled with a March 10 end date 14